>2025>still no caesarWhat's taking him so long?
There won't be a Caesar this time, there will be an Odoacer instead.
we already had a ceasar.
Soon.
Fukuyama won, there’s no Caesar. I finally realized how hard the right has been duped. Trump is not some crazy anomaly, America has always been this way. It changes nothing and nothing will happen except geopolitical shifts.
>>24723438Can I be the Justinian?
first as tragedy, then as tragedy, then as tragedy, then as tragedy
>>24723488The point is that the warlord you're waiting for will be an outsider, not someone fighting for the people of the West. Western "leaders" will be killed by angry mobs while they're trying to flee from responsibility.
>>24723403'The Caesar' is not a messianic figure. It's not even a single guy. 'The Caesar' is Trump wiping his ass with the constitution. 'The Caesar' is governors disobeying central government orders. 'The Caesar' is political parties becoming the retineues of Charismatic Big men.'The Caesar' is the triumph of force politics over money politics. 'The Caesar' is NOT a based warrior of the west that will kick out all the stinky brown people. 'The Caesar' will NOT make transexuality illegal. >>24723438It has to necessarily be someone from within the High Culture. Not some non-descript migrant.
>>24723612>The Caesar' is NOT a based warrior of the west that will kick out all the stinky brown peopleI wouldn't rule that out fully, caesarism changes the playing field so much that some fort of de facto military coup has to take place, you can only do so much through soft power like money, sooner or later every caesarean system degenerates into a monarchy and those can't survive without hard power to exercise
>>24723704>I wouldn't rule that out fully, caesarism changes the playing field so much that some fort of de facto military coup has to take place, It breaks and dissolves political forms. The economic and social imperatives of the society remain the same. Augustus did not stop migration from Syria into Italy.Btw calling post-caesarism monarchy feels a bit misleading. Monarchies cease to exist. There are only dynasty states. And not even necessarily.
>>24723773>Augustus did not stop migration from Syria into Italy.Augustus was also pretty famously concerned about low birth rates of roman citizens and issued laws to boost it, besides, romans had plenty of ethnic-nationalism in themselves, the massacre of the samnites being just one example. Besides, the better comparison to modern day anti-immigration sentiment would be the Gracchi brothers openly advocating against imported slave labourers displacing native italians, something that both Marius and Caesar kept close to heart.>Btw calling post-caesarism monarchy feels a bit misleading.Caesarism is nothing but civilised barbarity, imperial romans were fucking animals compared to mid republican era, and this trend continues until the whole of society settles into a more stable, but ultimately primitive form, a monarchy. Chinese empires and caliphates are the ones that managed to find their equilibrium and if left alone could theoretically last forever, Rome and Aztecs didn't have that luxury and were forcibly dissolved by outside actors. There is no philosophising behind it, no raison d'etre, it's just a warlord who managed to fight his way up. A 5th century Roman was closer in spirit to the German who ultimately conquered him than his ancestors from 1000 years earlier.
>>24723403you forgot to read Yockey
>>24723872>Augustus was also pretty famously concerned about low birth rates of roman citizens And his politics failed, spectacularly.But classical allusions lie. Egypt or China are better suited.>Caesarism is nothing but civilised barbarity, imperial romans were fucking animals compared to mid republican era, and this trend continues until the whole of society settles into a more stable, but ultimately primitive form, a monarchy.You clearly misunderstand the transition. Between the Late Han and the following dynasties there is not difference at all. Between Aurelian and the West until it's dissolution by Germans.The Mexicans you are right were invaded before completion. But, my friend, they were by far the most stable state of the lot.Each version's Caesarism is wholly unique to itself. And so is their formless political powrr. They all revert to the dynastic principle. But none of them are "Monarchies". > A 5th century Roman was closer in spirit to the German who ultimately conquered him than his ancestors from 1000 years earlier.Close to neither, odds were. Given that Magian art thoroughly dominated at the time. Interspersed with remnants of Apollinian final form-state.
>>24723403The Caesar was hitler, the events of our civilizational cycle are out of order in comparison to Greece and Rome, and we are about to begin both our crisis of the third century arc.
>>24723612>constitutionYou mean your leftist progressive liberal managerial totalitarian oligarchical rule.
>>24724339Said like a true follower of Ceaser. Keep the good work, pleb!
>>24723403he's a fraud and history isn't actually cyclical, it's just confirmation bias
>>24723486Fukuyama's entire definition of "history" is fraudulent. He's using the terminology from Hegel. He says "the end of history doesn't mean the end of events," but it doesn't occur to him how absurd that statement is. If the United States collapses into mass violence, dictatorship, or balkanization, that counts as history moving forward, and it means that liberal democracy was actually not the "winner" of history since history hasn't stopped and there is no winner.History is only over when Christ comes again at the end of the world.
>>24723403>What's taking him so long?Died on St Helen.
>>24724339And that too. But the dissolution of political forms into mere power politics is the main thing.
>>24723403>Germanic inversion of SpartacusBe the world sovereign you want to see in the world.
>>24726261Realistically, if you WANTED to be Caesar, or *a* Caesar, how would you go about it in the modern world?Would you necessarily have to be a military man? How would you get the attention of the masses, start a podcast? Would you have to win elected office legitimately first, before you started your process of seizing absolute power?Trump's a bit trite these days but it's probably worth thinking about him, and it's worth noting how many enormous advantages he had at the start of his rise to power. He was already rich, absurdly rich, and he'd been a feature in American culture since the 1970s, so almost 40 years of presence before he got into politics. Is that what it would take? That'd be a lot of work and take a lot of time.
>>24724387This anon is correct and it applies to any sort of historicalism. History isn't something you can just made broad sweeping generalizations about, it is infinitely nuanced. Hegel was a completely and utter mistake of academia and philosophy.
>>24726362you will never be a great man
>>24726690Spengler's Destiny idea and non-materialist metaphysics solve this issue by allowing for spiritual fulfillment to come about by symbolic means while also maintaining that history had no goal whatsoever. Also, Spengler's Cultures' Destinies are uber-high level and allow for the completely arbitrary nature of history to run its course.Spengler rarely mentions Hegel because his philosophy is clearly a response to its faults. Any criticism of him referring to Hegel got filtered by the title page.
>>24726362God's will
>>24723403Sry guys, I cant get a job ive been trained for.
>>24723403The Age of Caesars is already over. It was Hitler, Churchill, FDR, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc. You're living in the post Caesar era, where culture production is slowly coming to a halt and western civilization is already basically an empty husk. All the slogans, political ideologies, ideals, and such are empty and hollow, just farcical recreations from previous eras.This should be obvious just from watching modern politics devolve into scams, naked self interest, and pathetic, shallow attempts to bring back older ideals.You're living in a fossil.
>>24726690>History isn't something you can just made broad sweeping generalizations about, it is infinitely nuancedThis is literally the historicist position. You cannot make general statements about history, you must understand every historical event as its own unique occurrence influenced by its own unique history.Spengler deviates from this point of view in a sort of anglo-empiricist direction by claiming that you can in fact compare civilizations and their life cycles because they have common morphology.
>>24723612Caesar is a bad example.It's not a have/havenot problem its a Rome vs the provinces problem. But unlike Rome there isn't a desire to balkanize either. By necessity as American decline continues you're going to see the core cede power to the periphery, devolution similar to that which has happened in the UK with Scotland and Wales during their decline. Libby clitties are just being stubborn and refusing to flow with the historical tide.
>>24726362The question of whether the coming Caesar will be a state administrator / military leader vs. a wealthy businessman is something Spengler actually touched on in some of his works IIRC. Basically the Caesar would fall into either one of those two categories and as part of a cultural struggle between Anglo-Saxon ideas of free trade and capitalism against Prussian ideas of state management. It doesn't necessarily have to be like the original Caesar, i.e. a military leader and elected official. So yes, Trump could possibly fit the bill as a Spenglerian Caesar and if you were looking to be a Caesar you wouldn't have to be a commissioned officer or government official. The requirement is essentially being a populist leader that seizes power by some usage of "force" over "money" as a reaction to civilizational decline.As for an actual step-by-step process, I'm too lazy to type all that our right now and it certainly wouldn't be authoritative but looking at how other great men gained popularity and seized power in the past would be the place to start. If you had the potential to become a Caesar you would be able to figure it out. Maybe a podcast would be the place to start, most likely not though since everybody and their mother wants to be a podcaster these days and you would have to be able to stand out among everyone else. I would much rather you not try since the last thing the world needs is a podcaster and frogposter to seize power in the west.
>>24727036Have you read the book?
being an incel neet is too comfortable and I'm still 20If you want a young Alexander he should have prophesied that.
>>24727002Churchill, FDR, Mussolini, etc will go down in history as barely significant footnotes, in the same way nobody remembers anyone but Marius and Sulla from their respective era. So maybe Stalin and Hitler will make the cut
>>24723403didn't he say 2100s?
>>24727365Honestly them and John Paul II might be the figures people remember most from the 20th Century, looked at centuries in the future.
>>24727095I think conceptualizing of a personified 'Caesar' in and on itself is stupid. Caesarism is a process that lasts centuries, in the Apollonians it lasts from Marius to Domitian, roughly.It's not just one guy.And imo, fixation on analogy, especially to the Greeks is a bad idea.
>>24723403>What's taking him so long?He's a young zoomer
Spangler bro here. I'm so tired of explaining this. The EMPEROR was "Caesar," as a reference of office.When Spengler mentions Caesarism, he isn't talking about the fact that every civilization has a literal Gaius Julius Caesar that comes at a specific point in time to overthrow a collapsing republic. There's crumbs of truth there, but it's a distilled idea. What Caesarism really means is the centuries long petrification of a culture, which then molds it into its indefinite end state which can be referred as the same (Caesarism), as the Classical civilization faced during the reigns of the "Caesars." In other words, the Roman Empire.Gaius Julius wasn't even the real harbringer, prototypical Caesar-man, in Spengler's schema. It was Augustus.So no, there isn't a single Caesar, but many Caesars, which may overlap. Spengler sometimes poetically describes this state as a firm, marked age. But if you actually read him, it's a process which takes centuries to finalize. Caesarism is actually defined as "inward formlessness," no matter which outward dead forms proliferate around it. No new things come from that civilization's inward destiny, except pure random happenstance (as in, maybe a random masterpiece or great work of literature every century, or political or scientific evolution, as opposed to every year).
>>24727514But Christianity, which was the spark that lit Spengler's own, European civilization, came into being in the height of Roman Caesarism.It almost seems like Spengler is discounting the method of action of the Miraculous and the Divine. That he may analyze events in history but there is something Outside of history which may intervene in history's affairs.
>>24723452How dare he give us affordable healthcare, fight terrorists, and deport illegals
